Morgenstern v. County of Nassau

Before the court is the plaintiff's letter application dated June 29, 2006, seeking a protective order to protect the confidentiality of "highly sensitive" documents covered by a proposed protective order. Specifically, the plaintiff requests that the court enter the plaintiff's proposed Confidentiality Order so that the plaintiff will be protected from the unauthorized disclosure of her medical records and documents containing information concerning her family's finances. The County defendants do not object to preserving the privacy of the plaintiff's medical and financial records. Rather, the County defendants argue that the language of the plaintiff's proposed Confidentiality Agreement is too broad. The court has reviewed the attached Confidentiality Agreement and agrees with the defendants.

The parties have already agreed that the type of material contemplated as being marked Confidential would include (1) medical information; (2) information related to an individual's finances, including among things, bank account numbers, insurance policy numbers, and credit card numbers; and (3) information containing social security numbers. The County defendants dispute, however, the need to designate the material as for "Attorneys' Eyes Only" and argue that the obligation to take protective action should not cover depositions, motions and continue through the trial. The court agrees. Limiting the use of the confidential information for the purpose of this litigation only should be sufficient to address the plaintiff's privacy concerns. Accordingly, counsel for the plaintiff is directed to revise the Confidentiality Order consistent with this ruling and provide a copy to the defendants on or before July 21, 2006. Upon receipt of an executed agreement the plaintiff shall respond to all outstanding discovery requests.

Also before the court is the County defendants' June 30, 2006 letter application seeking reconsideration of the Court's June 20, 2006 order denying their motion for a protective order with respect to the deposition of County Executive Suozzi. Specifically, the defendants have requested that the court revisit its decision after all fact witnesses are deposed and permit the defendants to submit a supplemental declaration. The defendants have also advised District Judge Seybert of their intent to object to the June 20th order. Given the fact that the defendants have not addressed the standards for seeking reconsideration, rather they simply reargue the issues already considered by the court, the undersigned finds that the more appropriate course would be to object to the order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the motion seeking reconsideration is denied.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.